The Culverts

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

The Culverts HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT THE CULVERTS HISTORICAL DATA CHESAPEAKE AND OHIO CANAL NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK MD.-D.C.-W.VA. By Harlan D. Unrau DENVER SERVICE CENTER HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEAM NATIONAL PARK SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR DENVER, COLORADO January 1976 CONTENTS Preface iv Administrative Data v Statement of Historical Significance vi Recommendations vii I. Introduction 1 II. The Canal Project 1822–1828 2 III. The Construction of the Culverts between Georgetown 3 and Dam No. 5: 1828–1835 IV. The Construction of the Culverts between Dam No. 5 22 and Cumberland: 1835–1842 V. The Completion of the Culverts between Dam No. 6 46 and Cumberland: 1842–1850 VI. The Operation and Maintenance of the Culverts: 1850–1924 57 APPENDIXES A. “Specification for Culverts on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal” (ca. 1829) 63 B. “Tabular Statement of the Cost of the Works from the Mouth of Tiber Creek, 65 in Washington City, to the Mouth of Seneca Creek,” March 31, 1834 C. “General Summary: March 20, 1834,” by Engineer Alfred A. Cruger 70 D. “Proposals and Estimates for Culverts Nos. 206–209, 211, 215–217, 226–228, 71 232–233,” July 3, 1838 E. “List of Prices for Culverts Nos. 206–209, 211, 215–217, 226–228, 232–233,” 72 July 3, 1838 F. “Specification for Road Culvert No. 211 on Section No. 313 of 12 Feet Span” 74 G. “Summary of the 27½ Miles of Canal, Recently Opened for Navigation 77 Between Dam No. 5 and Dam No. 6” H. “Summary of the 50 Miles of Canal Between Dam No. 6 and Cumberland” 78 I. “Plan for reconstructing the Road Culvert on Brien’s land” 79 J. “50-Mile Section Estimates,” June 30, 1840 80 K. “Ground Surface of the Center line of Road Culvert No. 208,” 81 and Pit Quantities ILLUSTRATIONS Note: The original illustrations with the HSR were not located and other images of signif- icant culverts have been substituted Culvert 12 for Rock Run, mile 8.93 83 Culvert 44 for Broad Run, mile 31.94 83 Culvert51, mile 35.47, Whites Ferry 84 ii Culvert 95, mile 64.68 (?) 85 Culvert 95, mile 64.68 (?), towpath side 85 Culvert 95, mile 64.68 (?), berm side 85 Culvert 103, mile 70.38, berm side 86 Culvert 103, mile 70.38, towpath side 86 Culvert 104, mile 70.68, Millers Sawmill basin, towpath side 86 Culvert 104, mile 70.68, Millers Sawmill basin, berm side. 87 Culvert 105, mile 71.58, towpath side 87 Culvert 105, mile 71.58, berm side 87 Culvert 107, mile 73.46, berm side 88 Culvert 107, mile 73.46, towpath side 88 Culvert 108, mile 74.01, berm side 88 Culvert 108, mile 74.01, towpath side 89 Culvert 109, mile 74.28, towpath side 89 Culvert 109, mile 74.28, berm side 89 Culvert 111, mile 76.78 during reconstruction 90 Culvert 124, mile 96.60, towpath side 90 Culvert 139, mile 108.74, Prather’s Neck/Four Locks road culvert 90 Culvert 182, mile 124.38, Little Tonoloway culvert 91 Culvert 217, mile 166.1, Seven Springs run, Oldtown, before reconstruction 91 Culvert 223, mile 170.84, Kelly’s Road culvert 92 BIBLIOGRAPHY 93 iii PREFACE This report has been prepared to satisfy in part the research needs for the preserva- tion/stabilization of the culverts on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. More than 200 cul- verts of varying dimensions were built to pass the smaller creeks and streams under the canal. Previous to this report, John R. Miele wrote an historic structure report on Culverts Nos. 114–118 (January 1964). The purpose of this study is to complete the historical re- search on the culverts along the entire length of the canal. Because of the common histo- ries of these structures, an effort has been made to deal with them in a comprehensive manner while at the same time pointing out distinctive differences in their design. A number of persons have assisted in the preparation of this report. Thanks are due to Superintendent William R. Failor and Park Ranger Ellwood Wineholt for assistance at the park headquarters; to Maria Joy and Robert Kvasnicka of the National Archives who were helpful in locating unpublished documents; and to Dr. Harry Pfanz and Barry Mack- intosh of Park Historic Preservation (WASO), Supervisory Historian John F. Luzader (DSC), Historical Architect Thomas N. Crellin (DSC), and Editor Linda Greene for read- ing the manuscript and providing editorial assistance. Harlan D. Unrau May 31, 1974 iv ADMINISTRATIVE DATA A. Name of Structure Culverts, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park, Montgomery, Frederick, Washington and Allegany counties, Maryland. B. Proposed Use of Structure There are more than 200 culverts of various sizes that carry streams or roadways under the 185-mile length of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal. Although there is no officially- approved master plan, it is recommended that all of the culverts necessary to pass streams under the canal be stabilized, preserved or restored pending a final determination of their condition. C. Justification for Such Use Because the culverts are necessary to the adequate passage of streams under the canal, it is important that they function properly. Unless the culverts operate as they should, seri- ous damage will be done to the towpath, berm and canal banks. D. Provision for Operating Structure The culverts should be employed to provide an adequate drainage system for the streams from the berm side to the towpath side of the canal. E. Cooperative Agreement, if Any, Executed or proposed for Operating Structure There are numerous agreements governing the use of the culverts along the canal. Some culverts are used to convey private farm or county roads under the canal, while others are designed to carry both water and roadways under the canal. Agreements granting these access rights should be thoroughly reviewed before work on any of these structures is commenced. F. Description of Proposed Construction Activity To insure that the culverts can carry out their necessary function, the following projects are recommended: a. The barrels and the inflows and outflows of the culverts should be cleaned and cleared of siltation deposits, logs and debris. b. Where streams have changed their course because of obstructions, measures should be taken to redirect the streams through the culverts. c. Where there is structural damage to the culverts, it is recommended that they be stabi- lized or restored, depending on their relative importance to the canal. v STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE Between Georgetown and Cumberland, Maryland, numerous tributaries flow into the Po- tomac River. Eleven aqueducts were constructed to carry the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal over the rivers and larger creeks, while more than 200 culverts of varying dimensions were built to pass the smaller creeks and streams under the canal. Culverts were also con- structed in ravines in order to prevent the canal from being washed out during periods of heavy rain. Road culverts were built in order to provide access from vehicles to places on the river side of the canal. Some culverts served as roadways as well as for the passage of streams. vi RECOMMENDATIONS The records pertaining to the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company in the National Ar- chives, the Library of Congress, the Maryland State Archives at Annapolis, and the Maryland State Historical Society at Baltimore have been thoroughly investigated for this report. Therefore, it is the opinion of the author that no further historical research needs to be done on the culverts. During the planning stages of the restoration and maintenance work on the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, there is an urgent need to understand the function of the culverts. As wa- ter control devices, the culverts were designed to channel the flow of streams under the canal. Unless they are reestablished as such, the canal prism and its embankments will continue to suffer damage during periods of heavy rain. To insure that the culverts per- form their intended function, the following points should be considered: 1. All timber and debris that clogs the culvert barrels should be removed to permit a nor- mal flow of water. 2. Where the culvert barrels are heavily silted, they should be cleaned out. 3. In places where the stream channel on the inflow or outflow ends of a culvert has changed its course due to siltation or debris, efforts should be made to realign the flow of water. 4. Attention should be given to the stabilization, repair, or restoration of those culverts in a bad state of disrepair. vii I. INTRODUCTION The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal had to pass over numerous tributaries of the Potomac River between Georgetown and Cumberland. It was necessary to construct aqueducts to carry the waterway over the rivers and large creeks. The smaller creeks and streams were passed under the canal by culverts of varying dimensions. Culverts were also built in hol- lows to prevent the canal from being washed out during periods of heavy rain. Road cul- verts were constructed in order to provide access for vehicles to places on the river side of the canal. Some culverts served as road culverts as well as for the passage of a stream. The culverts below Harpers Ferry were generally about 110 feet long, due to the greater width of the canal, and those above Harpers Ferry were about 100 feet long on the aver- age. The curve of the culvert arch was generally a semicircle, and the thickness of the arch varied according to the length of the span. Wherever possible the culvert was to rest upon solid rock. Foundations of stone or timber were also acceptable, and the final deci- sion as to the proper foundation was left to the engineer.
Recommended publications
  • Appendix M: Aquatic Biota Monitoring Table
    NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT APPENDIX M: AQUATIC BIOTA MONITORING TABLE Final – May 2020 Aquatic Habitat, BIBI, and FIBI Scores and Rankings for Monitoring Sites within the Vicinity of the I-495 & I-270 Managed Lanes Study Corridor Aquatic Habitat BIBI FIBI MDE 12-digit Watershed Site Waterway Source Site I.D. Year Narrative Narrative Narrative Name Coordinates Method Score Score Score Ranking Ranking Ranking Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2008 -- -- -- 19.1 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2009 -- -- -- 15.5 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2010 -- -- -- 30.5 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2011 -- -- -- 29.7 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2012 -- -- -- 13.3 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2013 -- -- -- 12.5 Very Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2014 -- -- -- 38 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2015 -- -- -- 27.7 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1 Dead Run FCDPWES -77.176163 1646305 2016 -- -- -- 27.4 Poor -- -- Fairfax County Middle 38.959552, Potomac Watersheds1
    [Show full text]
  • Building Stones of Our Nation's Capital
    /h\q AaAjnyjspjopiBs / / \ jouami aqi (O^iqiii^eda . -*' ", - t »&? ?:,'. ..-. BUILDING STONES OF OUR NATION'S CAPITAL The U.S. Geological Survey has prepared this publication as an earth science educational tool and as an aid in understanding the history and physi­ cal development of Washington, D.C., the Nation's Capital. The buildings of our Nation's When choosing a building stone, Capital have been constructed with architects and planners use three char­ rocks from quarries throughout the acteristics to judge a stone's suitabili­ United States and many distant lands. ty. It should be pleasing to the eye; it Each building shows important fea­ should be easy to quarry and work; tures of various stones and the geolog­ and it should be durable. Today it is ic environment in which they were possible to obtain fine building stone formed. from many parts of the world, but the This booklet describes the source early builders of the city had to rely and appearance of many of the stones on materials from nearby sources. It used in building Washington, D.C. A was simply too difficult and expensive map and a walking tour guide are to move heavy materials like stone included to help you discover before the development of modern Washington's building stones on your transportation methods like trains and own. trucks. Ancient granitic rocks Metamorphosed sedimentary""" and volcanic rocks, chiefly schist and metagraywacke Metamorphic and igneous rocks Sand.gravel, and clay of Tertiary and Cretaceous age Drowned ice-age channel now filled with silt and clay Physiographic Provinces and Geologic and Geographic Features of the District of Columbia region.
    [Show full text]
  • 1835. EXECUTIVE. *L POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
    1835. EXECUTIVE. *l POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT. Persons employed in the General Post Office, with the annual compensation of each. Where Compen­ Names. Offices. Born. sation. Dol. cts. Amos Kendall..., Postmaster General.... Mass. 6000 00 Charles K. Gardner Ass't P. M. Gen. 1st Div. N. Jersey250 0 00 SelahR. Hobbie.. Ass't P. M. Gen. 2d Div. N. York. 2500 00 P. S. Loughborough Chief Clerk Kentucky 1700 00 Robert Johnson. ., Accountant, 3d Division Penn 1400 00 CLERKS. Thomas B. Dyer... Principal Book Keeper Maryland 1400 00 Joseph W. Hand... Solicitor Conn 1400 00 John Suter Principal Pay Clerk. Maryland 1400 00 John McLeod Register's Office Scotland. 1200 00 William G. Eliot.. .Chie f Examiner Mass 1200 00 Michael T. Simpson Sup't Dead Letter OfficePen n 1200 00 David Saunders Chief Register Virginia.. 1200 00 Arthur Nelson Principal Clerk, N. Div.Marylan d 1200 00 Richard Dement Second Book Keeper.. do.. 1200 00 Josiah F.Caldwell.. Register's Office N. Jersey 1200 00 George L. Douglass Principal Clerk, S. Div.Kentucky -1200 00 Nicholas Tastet Bank Accountant Spain. 1200 00 Thomas Arbuckle.. Register's Office Ireland 1100 00 Samuel Fitzhugh.., do Maryland 1000 00 Wm. C,Lipscomb. do : for) Virginia. 1000 00 Thos. B. Addison. f Record Clerk con-> Maryland 1000 00 < routes and v....) Matthias Ross f. tracts, N. Div, N. Jersey1000 00 David Koones Dead Letter Office Maryland 1000 00 Presley Simpson... Examiner's Office Virginia- 1000 00 Grafton D. Hanson. Solicitor's Office.. Maryland 1000 00 Walter D. Addison. Recorder, Div. of Acc'ts do..
    [Show full text]
  • THE PRICE of BONDAGE: SLAVERY, SLAVE VALUATION, and ECONOMICS in the ALBEMARLE by Jacob T. Parks April 2018 Director of Thesis
    THE PRICE OF BONDAGE: SLAVERY, SLAVE VALUATION, AND ECONOMICS IN THE ALBEMARLE By Jacob T. Parks April 2018 Director of Thesis: Donald H. Parkerson Major Department: History This thesis examines the economics of antebellum slavery in the Albemarle region of North Carolina. Located in the northeastern corner of the Carolina colony, the Albemarle was a harsh location for settlement and thus, inhabitants settled relatively late by Virginians moving south in search of better opportunities. This thesis finds that examination of a region’s slave economics not only conformed to, but also departed from, the larger slave experience in antebellum America. The introduction of this thesis focuses on the literature surrounding slave economics and valuation in antebellum America. After this, the main body of the thesis follows. Chapter one focuses on the various avenues slaves became property of white men and women in the Albemarle. This reveals that the county courts were intrinsically involved in allowing slave sales to occur, in addition to loop-holes slave owners utilized to retain chattel slavery cheaply. Additionally, this chapter pays special attention to slave valuation and statistical analysis. The following chapters revolve around the topics of: the miscellaneous costs associated with slavery in the Albemarle, such as healthcare, food, and clothing; insuring the lives of slaves and hiring them out for work away from their master; and examination of runaway slave rewards in statistical terms, while also creating a narrative of the enslaved and their actions. THE PRICE OF BONDAGE: SLAVERY, SLAVE VALUATION, AND ECONOMICS IN THE ALBEMARLE A Thesis Presented To the Faculty of the Department of History East Carolina University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in History by Jacob Parks April 2018 © Jacob Parks, 2018 THE PRICE OF BONDAGE: SLAVERY, SLAVE VALUATION, AND ECONOMICS IN THE ALBEMARLE by Jacob T.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the College of William and Mary from Its Foundation, 1693
    1693 - 1870 m 1m mmtm m m m&NBm iKMi Sam On,•'.;:'.. m '' IIP -.•. m : . UBS . mm W3m BBSshsR iillltwlll ass I HHH1 m '. • ml §88 BmHRSSranH M£$ Sara ,mm. mam %£kff EARL GREGG SWEM LIBRARY THE COLLEGE OF WILLIAM AND MARY IN VIRGINIA Presented By Dorothy Dickinson PIPPEN'S a BOOI^ a g OllD STORE, 5j S) 60S N. Eutaw St. a. BALT WORE. BOOES EOUOE' j ESCHANQED. 31 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://www.archive.org/details/historyofcollege1870coll 0\JI.LCkj£ THE HISTORY College of William and Mary From its Foundation, 1693, to 1870. BALTIMOKE: Printed by John Murphy & Co. Publishers, Booksellers, Printers and Stationers, 182 Baltimore Street. 1870. Oath of Visitor, I. A. B., do golemnly promise and swear, that I will truly and faith- fully execute the duties of my office, as a vistor of William and Mary College, according to the best of my skill and judgment, without favour, affection or partiality. So help me God. Oath of President or Professor. I, do swear, that I will well and truly execute the duties of my office of according to the best of my ability. So help me God. THE CHARTER OF THE College of William and Mary, In Virginia. WILLIAM AND MARY, by the grace of God, of England, Scot- land, France and Ireland, King and Queen, defenders of the faith, &c. To all to whom these our present letters shall come, greeting. Forasmuch as our well-beloved and faithful subjects, constituting the General Assembly of our Colony of Virginia, have had it in their minds, and have proposed
    [Show full text]
  • Building Stones of the National Mall
    The Geological Society of America Field Guide 40 2015 Building stones of the National Mall Richard A. Livingston Materials Science and Engineering Department, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA Carol A. Grissom Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute, 4210 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746, USA Emily M. Aloiz John Milner Associates Preservation, 3200 Lee Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22207, USA ABSTRACT This guide accompanies a walking tour of sites where masonry was employed on or near the National Mall in Washington, D.C. It begins with an overview of the geological setting of the city and development of the Mall. Each federal monument or building on the tour is briefly described, followed by information about its exterior stonework. The focus is on masonry buildings of the Smithsonian Institution, which date from 1847 with the inception of construction for the Smithsonian Castle and continue up to completion of the National Museum of the American Indian in 2004. The building stones on the tour are representative of the development of the Ameri­ can dimension stone industry with respect to geology, quarrying techniques, and style over more than two centuries. Details are provided for locally quarried stones used for the earliest buildings in the capital, including A quia Creek sandstone (U.S. Capitol and Patent Office Building), Seneca Red sandstone (Smithsonian Castle), Cockeysville Marble (Washington Monument), and Piedmont bedrock (lockkeeper's house). Fol­ lowing improvement in the transportation system, buildings and monuments were constructed with stones from other regions, including Shelburne Marble from Ver­ mont, Salem Limestone from Indiana, Holston Limestone from Tennessee, Kasota stone from Minnesota, and a variety of granites from several states.
    [Show full text]
  • He L'enfant Plan of 1791
    >ince its inception as a formal park, the National The Residence Act of 1790 authorized the president 11all has evolved and expanded along with the to choose the location for the new city. President 1atlon that created it. The story of the .Mall Is the . George Washington chose as the city's site the land .tory of the building of a new Federal City to serve in Maryland and Virginia where the Eastern Branch !S capital of the United States. From marshes and (Anacostia River), Rock Creek, and Tiber Creek fed neadows to one of the most famous and historic into the Potomac River. The Act also designated 3ndscapes in the world, the National Mall serves as three commissioners to have immediate authority his nation's front lawn. over purchasing and accepting • ...such quantity of land for use of the United States.• Most of the land -radition has it that the plain at the foot of present· acquired by the commissioners, Including the Carroll iay Capitol Hill, drained by the Tiber Creek, was the and Burnes properties, became this nation's first 1unting and fishing grounds of Native Americans. federal public parks. President Washington hired the Vith seventeenth century British colonization, most mifitary engineer Major Pierre Charles L'Enfant to if this land eventually came into the ownership of design the Federal City. It was L'Enfant's intention he Carroll and Burnes families. • ...to turn a savage wilderness into a Garden of Eden.• he L'Enfant Plan of 1791 .'Enfant envisioned a city of parks. The Mall, or Personality clashes with tha three commissioners ·c;;rand Avenue," was to be the central landscaoe of led to L'Enfant's dismissal in 1792.
    [Show full text]
  • Podolak Multifunctional Riverscapes
    Multifunctional Riverscapes: Stream restoration, Capability Brown’s water features, and artificial whitewater By Kristen Nicole Podolak A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor G. Mathias Kondolf, Chair Professor Louise Mozingo Professor Vincent H. Resh Spring 2012 i Abstract Multifunctional Riverscapes by Kristen Nicole Podolak Doctor of Philosophy in Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning University of California, Berkeley Professor G. Mathias Kondolf, Chair Society is investing in river restoration and urban river revitalization as a solution for sustainable development. Many of these river projects adopt a multifunctional planning and design approach that strives to meld ecological, aesthetic, and recreational functions. However our understanding of how to accomplish multifunctionality and how the different functions work together is incomplete. Numerous ecologically justified river restoration projects may actually be driven by aesthetic and recreational preferences that are largely unexamined. At the same time river projects originally designed for aesthetics or recreation are now attempting to integrate habitat and environmental considerations to make the rivers more sustainable. Through in-depth study of a variety of constructed river landscapes - including dense historical river bend designs, artificial whitewater, and urban stream restoration this dissertation analyzes how aesthetic, ecological, and recreational functions intersect and potentially conflict. To explore how aesthetic and biophysical processes work together in riverscapes, I explored the relationship between one ideal of beauty, an s-curve illustrated by William Hogarth in the 18th century and two sets of river designs: 18th century river designs in England and late 20th century river restoration designs in North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Capper-Cramton Resource Guide 2019
    Resource Guide Review of Projects on Lands Acquired Under the Capper-Cramton Act TAME Coalition TAME F A Martin Northwest Branch Trail Indian Creek Stream Valley Park Overview The Capper-Cramton Act (CCA) of 1930 (46 Stat. 482) was enacted for the acquisition, establishment, and development of the George Washington Memorial Parkway and stream valley parks in Maryland and Virginia to create a comprehensive park, parkway, and playground system in the National Capital.1 In addition to authorizing funding for acquisition, the act granted the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, now the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), review authority to approve any Capper-Cramton park development or management plan in order to ensure the protection and preservation of the region’s valuable watersheds and parklands. Subsequent amendments to the Capper-Cramton Act2 allocated funds for the acquisition and extension of this park and parkway system in Maryland and Virginia. Title to lands acquired with such funds or lands donated to the United States as Capper Cramton land is vested in the state in which it is located. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) utilized Capper-Cramton funds to protect stream valleys in parts of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. Similarly, the District of Columbia used federal funds to develop recreation centers, playgrounds, and park systems. There is no evidence that Virginia utilized Capper-Cramton funds to acquire stream valley parks under the CCA. Today, over 10,000 acres of Capper-Cramton land have been established and preserved as a result of the act. This resource guide is for general information purposes, and is not a regulatory document.
    [Show full text]
  • Projects Previously Awarded by the Montgomery County Watershed Restoration & Outreach Grant Program
    Projects Previously Awarded by the Montgomery County Watershed Restoration & Outreach Grant Program Year Organization Grant Project Title Project Description Awarded Amount 2015 Friends of Sligo $15,000 Public Outreach and Stewardship: To increase citizen awareness of water pollution and to give them Creek Expanding the Water WatchDog tools to stop it by sending an email and photo to the Montgomery Program in the Sligo Creek County government. We would like to expand an existing citizen- Watershed based reporting system called "Water WatchDogs", developed by 2 neighbors in Silver Spring. Over the past 9 years, the program has become a partnership of citizens, FOSC and Montgomery County's Department of Environmental Protection. It features a simple email address "[email protected]", which citizens can use to send reports and a photo of pollution to DEP's water detectives' smart phones. 2015 Rock Creek $38,000 Public Outreach and Stewardship- Rock Creek Conservancy has developed a program called Rock Conservancy Rock Creek Park In Your Backyard Creek Park in Your Backyard to educate homeowners in the Rock Creek watershed about the importance of protecting streams and parks through stewardship of lands outside of park boundaries. This program will combine outreach and engagement activities to encourage pollutant reduction on private property through RainScape practices with partnering with institutional properties to create conservation landscaping installations. We plan to work throughout the Rock Creek watershed in Montgomery County with an emphasis on the east side to reach under-represented populations. 2015 Anacostia $27,685 Community-Based Restoration Anacostia Riverkeeper will seek out three churches in Montgomery Riverkeeper Implementation: Churches to County as partners.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]